Cops cavity-search women stopped for littering

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

That is way too much authority. Search the car, if there is no evidence, let them go. There is no way an officer should be allowed to perform a search like that unless the suspect is under arrests.

You would know better than I, I thought a pat down was reasonable search, but obviously not a down the pants search.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

You would know better than I, I thought a pat down was reasonable search, but obviously not a down the pants search.

sgtbaker is just the name of a Primus song

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Hellbound

Yeah, I missed that there was dash cam footage before.

While this most likely was not a cavity search, still definately inappropriate and an abuse of position.

The ONLY way I could think this would be even remotely tolerable is if the women had made specific comments about having drugs in their pants (or if there was strong evidence they were, at the time, carrying drugs...and no, "I thought I smelled pot" isn't strong evidence). Even then, on the side of the road is not the right place for this kind of search.

While not a full cavity search, the hand down the pants was way out of line, and if fingers went into anus or vagina (and why the glove if not?) it was even farther out of line. I certainly didn't see anything in the video that would indicate that the women were disrespectful in any way to the officers (not that that would excuse their behavior). Since apparently no pot was actually found, most likely the claim to smell marijuana was bogus.

[joesixpack]

Neither of the women were wearing exceptionally baggy clothes, so I am curious what the officer thought she'd find.

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by lionking

If the police acted in the way alleged in Australia I believe they would be charged with sexual assault.

If the police acted that way with my wife or daughter, we'd might also have a murder charge.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by CORed

... and if fingers went into anus or vagina (and why the glove if not?) ....

Because things like herpes are not always inside the vagina or anus. Seriously, wouldn't you want gloves on reaching into someone's underwear?

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Because things like herpes are not always inside the vagina or anus. Seriously, wouldn't you want gloves on reaching into someone's underwear?

Which still leaves us with "Why are we reaching into someone's underwear with a glove we already used to reach into someone else's underwear with?" and "Why in fact are we reaching into anyone's underwear?"

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Which still leaves us with "Why are we reaching into someone's underwear with a glove we already used to reach into someone else's underwear with?" and "Why in fact are we reaching into anyone's underwear?"

With the right legal representation, they will be able to retire on the settlement and move somewhere pot is legal.

[BlackLyon]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Which still leaves us with "Why are we reaching into someone's underwear with a glove we already used to reach into someone else's underwear with?" and "Why in fact are we reaching into anyone's underwear?"

It looks as though the video has been edited to cut out the time between the officer walking the second victim in front of the camera, and the search actually being conducted. Why was this part trimmed out? Does it show the officer discarding the original gloves and replacing them with new ones? Maybe it doesn't show anything relevant at all, and was cut purely for time reasons.

She's reaching into their underwear because the officer that pulled them over believes they had(have) marijuana and are attempting to hide it on their person. I'm going to guess that the search was conducted on the spot instead of in private because, even handcuffed, it is possible for the women to access anything hidden in their lower nether regions.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If the police acted that way with my wife or daughter, we'd might also have a murder charge.

So you do have a point where.....And I am behind you completely on that.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by BlackLyon

It looks as though the video has been edited to cut out the time between the officer walking the second victim in front of the camera, and the search actually being conducted. Why was this part trimmed out? Does it show the officer discarding the original gloves and replacing them with new ones? Maybe it doesn't show anything relevant at all, and was cut purely for time reasons.

She's reaching into their underwear because the officer that pulled them over believes they had(have) marijuana and are attempting to hide it on their person. I'm going to guess that the search was conducted on the spot instead of in private because, even handcuffed, it is possible for the women to access anything hidden in their lower nether regions.

And hide it where from there?

[BlackLyon]

Originally Posted by fuelair

And hide it where from there?

At that point it would be less about hiding it again, and more about just getting rid of it. The two most common methods would be to try and outright ditch it on the ground/in a bush/under the patrol car when the officers weren't looking, and the tried and true "swallow it" method. Which, depending on what the substance was, could be lethal.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by BlackLyon

She's reaching into their underwear because the officer that pulled them over believes they had(have) marijuana and are attempting to hide it on their person. I'm going to guess that the search was conducted on the spot instead of in private because, even handcuffed, it is possible for the women to access anything hidden in their lower nether regions.

Good try, but men can hide things in their "nether regions" too, yet officers are not routinely shoving their hands down pants on the side of the road to see what's in anuses or behind scrotums. Neither of these women were wearing skirts so once cuffed their access to "anything hidden in their lower nether regions" would be incredibly limited, and any attempt at such access would be obvious long before any danger could present itself.

I know what I'd tell any officer who tried that on me, and what I would encourage anyone else to say in the same situation: "Arrest me if you want but keep your *********** pig* hands out of my pants." If they've got enough probable cause to fondle someone's genitalia, they've got enough probable cause to arrest. If not, they're just playing power games.

*I would not call every police officer a "pig" but in that situation the sentiment seems appropriate to me.

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by joesixpack

So really, in every city I've ever lived in for any length of time I saw examples of police behaving in the most unprofessional, thuggish and violent manner, more worthy of a criminal gang than a law enforcement organization.

Maybe you're a carrier.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by BlackLyon

It looks as though the video has been edited to cut out the time between the officer walking the second victim in front of the camera, and the search actually being conducted. Why was this part trimmed out? Does it show the officer discarding the original gloves and replacing them with new ones? Maybe it doesn't show anything relevant at all, and was cut purely for time reasons.

She's reaching into their underwear because the officer that pulled them over believes they had(have) marijuana and are attempting to hide it on their person. I'm going to guess that the search was conducted on the spot instead of in private because, even handcuffed, it is possible for the women to access anything hidden in their lower nether regions.

When officers believe people are hiding illegal things, they place them under arrest and then frisk them. I've never, ever seen or heard described the procedure depicted in that video being performed by police who suspect a person who isn't under arrest is hiding something.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by BlackLyon

At that point it would be less about hiding it again, and more about just getting rid of it. The two most common methods would be to try and outright ditch it on the ground/in a bush/under the patrol car when the officers weren't looking, and the tried and true "swallow it" method. Which, depending on what the substance was, could be lethal.

But, if handcuffed, the handcuffs (and hands) should be behind the back and not too moveable without it being pretty obvious.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If the police acted that way with my wife or daughter, we'd might also have a murder charge.

You'd beat the charge if I was on the jury.

[BlackLyon]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Good try, but men can hide things in their "nether regions" too, yet officers are not routinely shoving their hands down pants on the side of the road to see what's in anuses or behind scrotums.

There is a huge distinction between an officer going down your pants to search areas in which contraband may be hidden, and an officer penetrating a person's orifice to search for contraband.

I don't know how you would define "routine" when it comes to searching a suspect, but men do have these kinds of searches performed on them. In fact, I would argue it is likely these searches are conducted more often on men based purely on the ratio of convicted male offenders to female offenders.

What these two women are claiming is that the female officer penetrated them with her fingers. We can't see that on the tape. All we can see is that the officer in question stuck her hand down the front and back of each woman's pants.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Neither of these women were wearing skirts so once cuffed their access to "anything hidden in their lower nether regions" would be incredibly limited, and any attempt at such access would be obvious long before any danger could present itself.

Chavis Carter managed to shoot himself while handcuffed in the back of a police car with a gun that he had managed to keep concealed even after a police search.

Handcuffed high school student shoots self in back of police car. That one just happened a little over two weeks ago.

Two young men, both able to conceal a gun well enough that the police missed it on their initial search of their person(s). Both were able to retrieve the weapon and shoot themselves, while handcuffed, in the back of the police car. Without the cops being alerted that something was up.

You were saying...

[BlackLyon]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

When officers believe people are hiding illegal things, they place them under arrest and then frisk them. I've never, ever seen or heard described the procedure depicted in that video being performed by police who suspect a person who isn't under arrest is hiding something.

Wait...what?

No. You don't arrest first and look for evidence to support the arrest later. Did you possibly use the word "arrest" when you meant "handcuffed?" That does happen quite often. For the safety of all involved the suspected offender may be handcuffed before being searched. Just because he's handcuffed though doesn't mean he is necessarily under arrest.

[BlackLyon]

Originally Posted by fuelair

But, if handcuffed, the handcuffs (and hands) should be behind the back and not too moveable without it being pretty obvious.

One would think that. Please see my post above regarding the two men this year that were able to hide guns on themselves, avoid having the guns detected during the police search of their person, and shoot themselves while sitting with their hands cuffed behind their back in the squad car.

Needless to say, when it comes to dealing with possible offenders, presumptions can end up costing lives.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by BlackLyon

There is a huge distinction between an officer going down your pants to search areas in which contraband may be hidden, and an officer penetrating a person's orifice to search for contraband.

I don't know how you would define "routine" when it comes to searching a suspect, but men do have these kinds of searches performed on them. In fact, I would argue it is likely these searches are conducted more often on men based purely on the ratio of convicted male offenders to female offenders.

What these two women are claiming is that the female officer penetrated them with her fingers. We can't see that on the tape. All we can see is that the officer in question stuck her hand down the front and back of each woman's pants.

They were not under arrest at any point during the traffic stop. Thus, any search was looking for potential grounds for arrest and was not a "search incident to arrest." There's a very important distinction there and it should be obvious to you.

1. They were pulled over for throwing cigarette butts out of their car. No one is getting arrested for that. Getting a ticket wouldn't be out of line.
2. They were "acting weird." I'm pretty sure that's not grounds for arrest either.
3. The officer claims to have smelled marijuana. True or not, you cannot be arrested for smelling of the kind bud or even the gnarliest weed.
4. They passed a field sobriety test and were released with "warnings." The officers thus acknowledge by their actions that there was no grounds to arrest either woman, either prior to or following the invasive search.

Now, having lived in the United States for a while and learning at least a little about my civil rights, I can see no grounds in any of the above for an invasive body search, let alone an arrest which could indeed involve a cavity search before jailing the suspect(s). There are barely grounds for a "pat down" search (though some municipalities have managed to stretch civil rights in this regard for the supposed purpose of fighting terrorism).

Honestly, if you think that you would deserve to be searched in and around your swimsuit areas based on the above, I pity both your grasp of the law and your lack of self respect.

As for the handcuff issue, fine, sometimes weird things can happen. But it's irrelevant given that these people were not at any time under arrest. Police officers can't just slap cuffs on whomever they want because, you know, maybe there might be trouble at an entirely routine traffic stop.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by BlackLyon

Wait...what?

No. You don't arrest first and look for evidence to support the arrest later. Did you possibly use the word "arrest" when you meant "handcuffed?" That does happen quite often. For the safety of all involved the suspected offender may be handcuffed before being searched. Just because he's handcuffed though doesn't mean he is necessarily under arrest.

No; what I meant to imply is that, I've never heard of police searching people they've pulled out of a car that they haven't arrested. Obviously if they need to search for evidence that means they don't have any, and if they don't have any evidence, there's no reason to search.

I could be wrong - maybe police are allowed to frisk anyone on a whim. But, what I'm not wrong about is that they frisk them; they don't stick their hands down peoples' pants. It may be anecdotal; but at least one police officer I'm personally acquainted with has told me he doesn't recognize the procedure in that video.

[BlackLyon]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

They were not under arrest at any point during the traffic stop. Thus, any search was looking for potential grounds for arrest and was not a "search incident to arrest." There's a very important distinction there and it should be obvious to you.

Right. That distinction would be that the officer asked both women if he could search their person and the vehicle, and both consented. Thus, the "search incident to arrest" exception is irrelevant. Both parties agreed to the search.

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Honestly, if you think that you would deserve to be searched in and around your swimsuit areas based on the above, I pity both your grasp of the law and your lack of self respect.

My grasp of the law is based on one brother being a cop, both parents being former cops, and one grandparent being a cop. Oh, and I went through the police academy and have been on (rough estimate) thirty odd ride-alongs with officers.

What is your grasp of the law based on?

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

As for the handcuff issue, fine, sometimes weird things can happen. But it's irrelevant given that these people were not at any time under arrest. Police officers can't just slap cuffs on whomever they want because, you know, maybe there might be trouble at an entirely routine traffic stop.

Agreed, but again irrelevant. I never discussed slapping handcuffs on people. We were discussing the women possibly stashing their marijuana in their pants, and retrieving it later. You pointed out that it would be difficult and obvious. I simply refuted that by providing my two examples.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by BlackLyon

My grasp of the law is based on one brother being a cop, both parents being former cops, and one grandparent being a cop. Oh, and I went through the police academy and have been on (rough estimate) thirty odd ride-alongs with officers.

Excellent! Then you must have innumerable examples of police officers - right in your own family! - who pulled people over for minor traffic infractions, jammed their hands down citizens' underpants in public, and then let them go with a warning. Or maybe they only fondled drivers when they thought they smelled marijuana? Or thought the people were a little weird?

[BlackLyon]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

No; what I meant to imply is that, I've never heard of police searching people they've pulled out of a car that they haven't arrested. Obviously if they need to search for evidence that means they don't have any, and if they don't have any evidence, there's no reason to search.

This is actually quite common. The officer asked both women for permission to search them and the vehicle. Both women consented. He doesn't need to arrest them now in order to conduct a search.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I could be wrong - maybe police are allowed to frisk anyone on a whim. But, what I'm not wrong about is that they frisk them; they don't stick their hands down peoples' pants. It may be anecdotal; but at least one police officer I'm personally acquainted with has told me he doesn't recognize the procedure in that video.

The procedure is a little odd, especially the edited video in linked in the original post. I've copied and pasted below the unedited footage found on YouTube (it runs almost an hour)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fXkn_0UEzg

The unedited footage shows a more thorough search being conducted by the female officer. You can also see that the female officer uses the back of her hand when she checks the women's backsides. It also appears that she uses the back of her hand to check the women's front, and only turns it inward when she goes to check the crotch area.

I have to ask this though - does nobody wonder why, if this officer planned on conducting an illegal cavity search, she would make it a point to pull them in front of the camera first? It is complete darkness ten feet to the left. She pulls both women in front of the camera because it is proper procedure, to both protect the women and the officers.

[BlackLyon]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Excellent! Then you must have innumerable examples of police officers - right in your own family! - who pulled people over for minor traffic infractions, jammed their hands down citizens' underpants in public, and then let them go with a warning. Or maybe they only fondled drivers when they thought they smelled marijuana? Or thought the people were a little weird?

You didn't answer the question. In fact, you've dodged every relevant point of our discussion, and instead attempted to deflect and/or reduce everything down to the absurd. For the sake of avoiding the name calling, which given how fast this conversation has gone downhill I would expect to happen shortly, let's just leave things at a polite agree to disagree. Good day.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by BlackLyon

You didn't answer the question. In fact, you've dodged every relevant point of our discussion, and instead attempted to deflect and/or reduce everything down to the absurd. For the sake of avoiding the name calling, which given how fast this conversation has gone downhill I would expect to happen shortly, let's just leave things at a polite agree to disagree. Good day.

You're citing your extensive knowledge, so I assumed that you'd have evidence to back up the idea that public cavity searches of those who commit minor traffic infractions is somehow a perfectly legal and appropriate part of the police toolset.

Frankly, whether these women consented to a search of their person or not is irrelevant to me once the hand went down the underwear. You seem incapable of understanding that this is entirely inappropriate police behavior. If they did consent, they did so out of ignorance and/or fear; it's one thing for police to take advantage of those emotions when dealing with real criminals but I find it unacceptable to do so when dealing with citizens at traffic stops.

Also, I didn't call you any names and your assumption that I'm on a slippery slope to incivility is unwarranted.

[P.J. Denyer]

Speaking as a motorcyclist who once found himself doing 70mph completely blind on a busy motorway (M25) because some moron threw a smouldering fag butt out the window of a van, and who has also had one hit him in the throat and go down the neck of his jacket on two occassions I can't help wonder if this would be a great way to prevent such behaviour...

[commandlinegamer]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Speaking as a motorcyclist who once found himself doing 70mph completely blind on a busy motorway (M25) because some moron threw a smouldering fag butt out the window of a van, and who has also had one hit him in the throat and go down the neck of his jacket on two occassions I can't help wonder if this would be a great way to prevent such behaviour...

Not condoning anyone who throws stuff from moving vehicles, but if you're travelling at speed, is it not pretty risky not having your visor down to avoid hazards such as flying insects, dust, gravel, never mind lit butts?

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

According to the Dallas Morning News, these women (a driver and her passenger) were stopped when an officer spotted them throwing some trash out of their car - which is perfectly okay in my book. However,



OK; now, we're talking about on the side of the open road - while cars go by - illuminated by the police car's spotlights - a state trooper gave the two women a cavity search, evidently using the same glove to search all the orifices.

Frankly it sounds more like the beginning of a cheesy porn flick and it's difficult to believe anything like this really happened. But, sure enough there's dashcam footage of the entire incident.

Those ladies are going to win the lawsuit. There was no reason to search them like that. If they were going to search them they should have done it at the police station. Even in that situation they didn't have just cause.

My friend was driving my car when we were teenagers and when he was stopped and ticketed for scratching off they searched my car including the trunk for alcohol and they found nothing. I felt like a criminal when I was innocent of any wrong doing.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

Not condoning anyone who throws stuff from moving vehicles, but if you're travelling at speed, is it not pretty risky not having your visor down to avoid hazards such as flying insects, dust, gravel, never mind lit butts?

Yes, but the full sequence of events was that the car in front of me decided to wash it's windscreen and didn't have properly adjusted nozzels, the spray hit my visor in sufficient quantity to smear but not remove the dead bug remains that had accumulated since I'd left home that morning and obscuring my view, at which point I raised the visor intending to slow pull back into the next lane and try and clear it up a bit. It was at this exact moment that white van man decided to ditch his fag....... A bit of a 'perfect storm' situation but that's how it played out. If the car in front had looked in his mirror and thought 'Hmmm maybe that biker behind me doesn't want a faceful of soapy water right now' the butt would have just bounced of my visor but drivers don't often seem to think like that.

The two occasions I've got them down jacket fronts have been pretty distracting too. Not to mention the forest and roadside fires they start and the times when they get caught in car radiators at just the same places that dry leaves and scraps of paper also get stuck and start car fires.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Whether it was a technically-correct "cavity search" in the definite procedural sense of the word, it was an invasive assault and out of line.

The best way to get the moderators to edit your thread title is to report the OP, with some description like "please change my incorrect thread title."